Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

MichaelCPrice
1) conflated sources and used editorial syntheses to add misleading and fraudulent content to the Ebionites article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Michael Price repeatedly engaged in WP:SYN and WP:OR to push a POV that extended well beyond the sources he cited. MP refused to provide evidence from his sources to back up his claims on the talk page, including page numbers and specific quotations. Even when overwhelming evidence was provided by other editors to refute his claims, he refused to remove the misleading content and sources or allow them to be modified by other editors.  MP was fully aware that the conflated content was false, yet he continued to add more to the article to weave an elaborate synthesis that eventually brought the article down in FAR.  Ovadyah 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I readily underwrite Ovadyah's every word in summation above. This might, at first glance, appear as a storm in a teacup (one potential editor recused himself on these grounds, if I am not mistaken. It did not appear in his view to be sufficiently important to warrant arbitration). But since the Ebionites constitute one of the primary groups within the earliest strata of Christianity, and Christianity has determined the forma mentis or one of the seminal casts of thought of Western civilisation, evidence about them bears on central issues in our civilization itself as that has been influenced by that creed. To get the evidence right is no mean task, and several editors (excluding myself) brought the page to a level of deeply informed quality that won it FA status. That status has been under strain for a good deal of time because an inordinate amount of time, effort, exegesis and dialogue has been expended in endeavouring to get just one contributor, Michael Price, to engage the other editors responsibly, and intelligently. His problem appears to be that he has made a peculiar synthesis of two recent scholars in order to undergird a personal POV. He cited manifestly fringe, non-scholarly sources such as Keith Akers, as if the opinions of these pop thinkers had the same weight as those of his favourite theorists, James Tabor and Robert Eisenman. He again does not appear to understand, in particular, Robert Eisenman, whose work is notoriously intricate to the point of obscurity. The theories of these respective scholars are thoroughly hypothetical, some consider them 'wild,' based on strong illations from scarce evidence, meaning they must be dealt with with extreme care.


 * After an intensive dialogue between several of us and Michael, that bordered on exasperation for the sheer difficulty of getting our interlocutor to understand why the rest of the editors found his editorial approach incoherent, his illegitimate syntheses not properly sourced, and his behaviour generally in violation of Wiki procedures, arbitration was requested, and its application was underwritten by all those editors. Michael C.Price disappeared. He has, as far as I can see, taken no interest whatsoever in this final attempt to have our disputes with him mediated by independent parties. I take this as a final sign of bad faith. He has exhausted the considerable patience of several editors, and, having driven them to arbitration, withdrawn from it, apparently. I find this all profoundly disconcerting, and yet I do not think any extreme measure is called for. One simply asks that he be banned from editing this page, which aspires to reacquire the quality that won it FA status. His presence there is a menace to the article.Nishidani 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I readily underwrite Ovadyah's every word in summation above. --Loremaster 13:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Ovadyah's summary above is an entirely fair summary of the situation. John Carter 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And so do I. Str1977 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MichaelCPrice
1) should be permanently banned from further editing on the Ebionites article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Michael Price shows a history of returning to the Ebionites article, after periodic absences, to engage in extended edit warring on the talk page, personal attacks, and violations of WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:TE, and Neutral_Point_of_View. There is little reason to believe that all of the disputed content, now removed to the talk page, would not be added back to the article without discussion, thereby reintroducing fraudulent content to the article.  This is particularly likely now that the editors that brought the article to FA status, Loremaster and myself, have permanently left the article.  It is unlikely that new editors, with the willingness and ability to restore the article to FA quality, can be persuaded to contribute to the article, facing the prospect of harassment by such a disruptive editor.  The remedy currently under consideration by ArbCom does not address these concerns. Ovadyah 16:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Relunctantly concur. I cannot imagine many people would be willing to subject themselves to Michael's behavior for an extended period of time. John Carter 17:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is no other solution than that of having him stay off that page. His record there is devastating, and the record of all other editors is one of extraordinary patience ill-rewarded. They ask only that on a quality wiki page, they be allowed to work in peace and productively.Nishidani 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Michael has already spent much time on this article. In any case, serious editors should not be subjected to wading through this period until he finally realises the futility of his attempt before being able to make serious edits in peace. And especially newcomers will be repelled by such behaviour. One question: should Michael only be banned from one article or should also related elements on other articles (e.g. James the Just) be covered? I am talking topics, not articles here. Str1977 (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have noticed those contributions, which seem to indicate he spread his conflation to other articles as well. However, I don't think he's been quite so active with those articles. Also, if he were to engage in edit-warring over those articles on the same basis, I'm pretty sure a simple complaint to the Admin's noticeboard citing a decision here regarding the same subject would probably be enough for further action. John Carter 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a systemic problem afflicting several articles tangentially related to the Ebionites. These include the articles on John the Baptist, James the Just, and James Tabor, as Michael sought to make these articles conform to the POV he was pushing on the Ebionites article.  The extent to which they are conflated is less clear because there has been less oversight.  I would recommend having an expedited process in place for this entire subject area which would not require going through the usual RFC / Mediation steps and a full Arbitration proceeding. Ovadyah 03:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: